PURPOSE: Astigmatic subjects are adapted to their astigmatism and perceptually recalibrate upon its correction. However, the extent to which prior adaptation to astigmatism affects visual performance, whether this effect is axis dependent, and the time scale of potential changes in visual performance after astigmatism correction are not known. Moreover, the effect of possible positive interactions of aberrations (astigmatism and coma) might be altered after recalibration to correction of astigmatism. METHODS: Visual acuity (VA) was measured in 25 subjects (astigmats and non-astigmats, corrected and uncorrected) under induction of astigmatism and combinations of astigmatism and coma while controlling subject aberrations. Astigmatism (1.00 diopter) was induced at three different orientations, the natural axis, the perpendicular orientation, and 45 degrees for astigmats and at 0, 90, and 45 degrees for non-astigmats. Experiments were also performed, adding coma (0.41 μm at a relative angle of 45 degrees) to the same mentioned astigmatism. Fourteen different conditions were measured using an 8-Alternative Forced Choice procedure with Tumbling E letters and a QUEST algorithm. Longitudinal measurements were performed up to 6 months. Uncorrected astigmats were provided with proper astigmatic correction after the first session. RESULTS: In non-astigmats, inducing astigmatism at 90 degrees, produced a statistically lower reduction in VA than at 0 or 45 degrees, whereas in astigmats, the lower decrease in VA occurred for astigmatism induced at the natural axis. Six months of astigmatic correction did not reduce the insensitivity to astigmatic induction along the natural axis. Differences after orientation of astigmatism were also found when adding coma to astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of astigmatism on VA is greatly dependent on the orientation of the induced astigmatism, even in non-astigmats. Previous experience to astigmatism plays a significant role on VA, with a strong bias toward the natural axis. In contrast to perceived isotropy, the correction of astigmatism does not shift the bias in VA from the natural axis of astigmatism.
PURPOSE: Astigmatic subjects are adapted to their astigmatism and perceptually recalibrate upon its correction. However, the extent to which prior adaptation to astigmatism affects visual performance, whether this effect is axis dependent, and the time scale of potential changes in visual performance after astigmatism correction are not known. Moreover, the effect of possible positive interactions of aberrations (astigmatism and coma) might be altered after recalibration to correction of astigmatism. METHODS: Visual acuity (VA) was measured in 25 subjects (astigmats and non-astigmats, corrected and uncorrected) under induction of astigmatism and combinations of astigmatism and coma while controlling subject aberrations. Astigmatism (1.00 diopter) was induced at three different orientations, the natural axis, the perpendicular orientation, and 45 degrees for astigmats and at 0, 90, and 45 degrees for non-astigmats. Experiments were also performed, adding coma (0.41 μm at a relative angle of 45 degrees) to the same mentioned astigmatism. Fourteen different conditions were measured using an 8-Alternative Forced Choice procedure with Tumbling E letters and a QUEST algorithm. Longitudinal measurements were performed up to 6 months. Uncorrected astigmats were provided with proper astigmatic correction after the first session. RESULTS: In non-astigmats, inducing astigmatism at 90 degrees, produced a statistically lower reduction in VA than at 0 or 45 degrees, whereas in astigmats, the lower decrease in VA occurred for astigmatism induced at the natural axis. Six months of astigmatic correction did not reduce the insensitivity to astigmatic induction along the natural axis. Differences after orientation of astigmatism were also found when adding coma to astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of astigmatism on VA is greatly dependent on the orientation of the induced astigmatism, even in non-astigmats. Previous experience to astigmatism plays a significant role on VA, with a strong bias toward the natural axis. In contrast to perceived isotropy, the correction of astigmatism does not shift the bias in VA from the natural axis of astigmatism.
Authors: Susana Marcos; John S Werner; Stephen A Burns; William H Merigan; Pablo Artal; David A Atchison; Karen M Hampson; Richard Legras; Linda Lundstrom; Geungyoung Yoon; Joseph Carroll; Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Adam M Dubis; Alfredo Dubra; Ann Elsner; Ravi Jonnal; Donald T Miller; Michel Paques; Hannah E Smithson; Laura K Young; Yuhua Zhang; Melanie Campbell; Jennifer Hunter; Andrew Metha; Grazyna Palczewska; Jesse Schallek; Lawrence C Sincich Journal: Vision Res Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Danny Kho; Cathleen Fedtke; Daniel Tilia; Jennie Diec; Jennifer Sha; Varghese Thomas; Ravi C Bakaraju Journal: Clin Optom (Auckl) Date: 2018-01-11
Authors: Jay Won Rhim; Youngsub Eom; Seo Yeon Park; Su-Yeon Kang; Jong Suk Song; Hyo Myung Kim Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 2.209